SC seeks centre’s response on order to block Youtube channel

The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre on a petition seeking quashing of an order blocking a YouTube channel, 4PM, citing “national security” and “public order”.

The plea said that the blocking order was effected by the intermediary, in this case YouTube, following an undisclosed direction from the Centre.

A bench of justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan agreed to hear the plea and issued notices to the Centre and others seeking their responses on the petition.

The plea, filed by Sanjay Sharma who is the editor of digital news platform “4PM” with 7.3 million subscribers, has alleged that the blocking was a “chilling assault on journalistic independence” and the right of public to receive information.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, said, “How can this happen. This is ex-facie unconstitutional. I have not been served a copy of the blocking order. Only information I have is from the intermediary.”

The plea, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The petition said it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard. “National security and public order are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny,” it said.

The plea said the action was not only ultra vires the parent statute but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press.

Sharma’s YouTube channel sought to question the accountability and lapses following the Pahalgam terror attack.

On the morning of April 29, he received an e-mail from YouTube conveying about the blocking order. “No blocking order or underlying complaint has been furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards,” Sharma said in his plea.

The petition even challenged the validity of Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which permit blocking without notice or hearing. As this issue is already being considered by the top court in a pending proceeding filed by Software Freedom Law Centre, he suggested having his petition tagged with the other case.

According to him, Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 constitutes a complete code and mandates reasoned orders subject to procedural safeguards.

The bench agreed to have the matter immediately after two weeks and allowed the petitioner to serve the petition to the ministry of electronics and information technology, and the ministry of home affairs.